K9 Benchmarks (Quad Core)

[clarkey01]

http://www.heise.de/ct/05/09/022/bild.jpg

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22585

 

[intogamer]

:shocked:

 

[sparkyclarky]

While the performance numbers are intriguing, I'm more interested in the Watts put out. Those specs are showing 140+ Watts for some of those chips. BTX should helps somewhat, but I'm definitely starting to see liquid cooling coming into play with OEMs, much like Apple did with the dual 2.5s. It will be interesting to say the least, as that is a hell of a lot of heat coming from a small area!

 

[bersl2]

Looks like Intel's banking on having some uber-high IPC in their future.

 

[milkrocks]

i wonder if AMD is planning to impliment the patent they have on adding the Peltier process inside their microchips. It wouldnt curtail the overall heat output (it would actually increase it) but it does allow for individual areas of the cpu to be kept chilly.

 

[ksherman]

Holy cow! the 'road map' has the K9 running at a higher clocke speed than its Xeon counterpart! and running on a whole lot more power! wounder if it is all true? prob. not

 

[Duvie]

I think the INtel numbers look amaziung...quad cores at only 89watts!!!! That is like closer to AMD current specs for dual core cpus now...look at the Xeon woodcrest at 45 watts!!!!!

Also of interesting note INtels cpu speed is reduced and IPC has seemed to flip flop with AMD perhaps...INtegers are still strong for INtel but a bit weaker on the fpu though giving up 400mhz per 4 cores....

 

[cbehnken]

Hmmm, doesn't seem like that big of news.

I could predict that in 2010 there will be an 8 core K12. It doesn't mean anything until this chips are actually made.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I think the INtel numbers look amaziung...quad cores at only 89watts!!!! That is like closer to AMD current specs for dual core cpus now...look at the Xeon woodcrest at 45 watts!!!!!

Also of interesting note INtels cpu speed is reduced and IPC has seemed to flip flop with AMD perhaps...INtegers are still strong for INtel but a bit weaker on the fpu though giving up 400mhz per 4 cores....

Yep, that's what I was looking at too.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Duvie
I think the INtel numbers look amaziung...quad cores at only 89watts!!!! That is like closer to AMD current specs for dual core cpus now...look at the Xeon woodcrest at 45 watts!!!!!

Also of interesting note INtels cpu speed is reduced and IPC has seemed to flip flop with AMD perhaps...INtegers are still strong for INtel but a bit weaker on the fpu though giving up 400mhz per 4 cores....

Yep, that's what I was looking at too.

P6 anyone?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

So intel is making the transition to the PM tech it would seem

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
So intel is making the transition to the PM tech it would seem

It never really left it. Work on the P6 ( pentium,II,III) continued...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
So intel is making the transition to the PM tech it would seem

I knew it. Well, had a strong feeling that they would.

 

[HeaterCore]

They're predicting performance for chips that won't debut until late 2007? Sheesh, three years ago Intel expected the P4 architecture to scale to 10GHz. I'd take those benchmarks with a gigantic, industrial sack of salt.

-HC-

 

[Duvie]

So how are they predicting them??? Anybody know....Going off of what the manufacturer predicts??? Using specs listed by manufacturer to similuate INT ad FPU performance???

 

[clarkey01]

We could ask LithoGraphWorker.

Doubt he'll tell though ;-)

 

[IntelUser2000]

Its pretty easy to speculate. Find performance scaling based on clock speed, and since both AMD and Intel is de-emphasizing clock speed and ILP, they'll both not really enhance the single core performance much. Then find dual core scaling with examples like Pentium D, and there you have your performance.

Anyways, you guys are funny. If Pentium M cores can be called P6 cores, then A64 cores can be called K6 cores.

Extending pipeline stages radically with Pentium 4 and putting really enhanced branch prediction and put things like Trace Cache and SSE2 instructions don't really make it that significant from P6 if we see it that way.

With Pentium M, extending pipeline stages to 13-15 stages, putting enhanced branch prediction, micro-op fusion, dedicated stack management, Pentium 4 bus is in a way significant as Pentium 4.

If Intel put everything Netburst into Pentium 4 but made the pipeline stages only 13 stages, do you guys call that a P6?

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I find it hard to believe that AMD will have so high a wattage compared to the Intel. Of course a quad core dothan would be 100watts (I know it is more problematic than that with L2 cache and stuff) but that would be interesting. Of course with AMD releasing 1.6 AMD64's at 25watt and 2.0 at 35 watt things should get interesting. Hmmm, current AMD64 2.0 Turion at 35 watt times 4 cores = 140w. Interesting, God I love insane conspiracy and off the wall conjecture

 

[Markfw]

I like AMD, but until I see REAL benchmarks on Anandtech of REAL products, I don't speculate....Too many unknowns...

 

[Hanpan]

Just like to mention thes are not benchmarks but extrapolations at best and nothing but numbers at worst

 

[Keysplayr]

It's all in the eyes of the beholder people. What you want to see happen influences what you say in here and most don't even realize it, some do. For example, I want Intel to be on top again. Why? I have absolutely no idea. All I know is that I like their products better even if they are a bit slower in games and most apps. This is why I am paying so much attention to the Pentium M. That chart is kind of exactly what I think will happen when intel abandons its P4 architecture and focuses on what they know will work.
Revised Netburst? who knows. Rethink Hyperthreading methods? I believe they will. 31 stage pipline? See ya. Hello lower clock speeds and Higher IPC. /my thought.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's all in the eyes of the beholder people. What you want to see happen influences what you say in here and most don't even realize it, some do. For example, I want Intel to be on top again. Why? I have absolutely no idea. All I know is that I like their products better even if they are a bit slower in games and most apps. This is why I am paying so much attention to the Pentium M. That chart is kind of exactly what I think will happen when intel abandons its P4 architecture and focuses on what they know will work.
Revised Netburst? who knows. Rethink Hyperthreading methods? I believe they will. 31 stage pipline? See ya. Hello lower clock speeds and Higher IPC. /my thought.

Work on netburst continues. Cedamil/Pulser are not high IPC designs, if anything there more closer to netburst then the P6.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's all in the eyes of the beholder people. What you want to see happen influences what you say in here and most don't even realize it, some do. For example, I want Intel to be on top again. Why? I have absolutely no idea. All I know is that I like their products better even if they are a bit slower in games and most apps. This is why I am paying so much attention to the Pentium M. That chart is kind of exactly what I think will happen when intel abandons its P4 architecture and focuses on what they know will work.
Revised Netburst? who knows. Rethink Hyperthreading methods? I believe they will. 31 stage pipline? See ya. Hello lower clock speeds and Higher IPC. /my thought.

Work on netburst continues. Cedamil/Pulser are not high IPC designs, if anything there more closer to netburst then the P6.

Cedar Mill and Presler are supposed just be 65nm versions of the current Prescott/Smithfields (Single Core/Dual Core) arent they? Anyway, I really wasn't talking about Cedar Mill/Presler, but further beyond that. Conroe? Maybe? Can't know. Starting around Q1 2007 in the area of the chart where the Xeon WoodCrest at 2.3 GHz at 41w enters. The Tulsa just before it still looks to be Pentium 4 Prescott based at 3.7GHz and 136w.